Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01254-Gl\/IS Document 136 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HARRY SMITH, JR. and ROSLYN )
WOODARD SMITH, Individually and as )
Administrators of THE ESTATE Ol: )
HARRY SMITH, III )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. O4—l254—GMS
v. )
)
CITY OF WILMINGTON, JOHN )
CIRITELLA, THOMAS DEMPSEY, and )
MATHEW KURTEN, )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANTS’ FOURTH MOTION IN LIMINE
(TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PURPORTED EXPERT
CRITIQUES OF THE ACTS OF N ON—·DEFEl\lDANTS)
Defendants move to exclude certain purported expert testimony critical of the actions of
non—def`endants. Plaintiffs have served expert reports criticizing acts of norndefendant police
officers and others that can not be attributed to any of the defendants. Plaintiffs’ proffered
critiques of norndefendants are irrelevant and can serve only to confuse the jury regarding the
relevant issues in this case.
The report ofplaintif`f`s’ purported expert Joseph 3. Stine argues that non-defendant police
officers and third-parties failed to act reasonably in the following respects:
• "Failure of the officers who had their veliicle taken without their permission to
provide adequate information?
• "Failure of the Police Communications facility to request the proper and pertinent
infor1nation."
• “Failure of the officers and supervisors involved in the pursuit to ascertain the
pertinent inforrnation regarding the necessity of a pursuit?
rrrra-3¤s54;w-r

Case 1:04-cv-01254-G|\/IS Document 136 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 2 of 4
• "Failure ofthe on duty supervisors, many of whom were actively participating in
the pursuit, to exercise their supervisory authority to direct control and terminate
the pursuit."
(Ex. A at 4).
Similarly, the report of`p]aintiffs’ purported expert Elbert Waters critiques the purported
"blunders" o1°non—defendant police ofticer lohmiy Whitehead at the site ofthe initial carjacking
on 14m and Washington Streets. (Ex- B at 7).
None ofthe above~referenced purported expert critiques of`tlrird—parties should be argued
to the jury. These critiques of non—det`endants have no relevance to any claim or defense in this
action. Cf F.R.E. 402; Schneider v. Fried, 320 Eid 396, 404 (Bd Cir. 200.3) (to be admissible
"the expert's testimony must be relevant for the purposes of the case and must assist the trier of
fact?). There ofcourse is no claim against any of the nomdefendants that Stine and Waters
critique. There is no theory under which the defendant police officers could be liable for the
actions ofthe critiqued non—defendants.. Similarly, the Amended Complaint does not allege any
claim under which the City of Wilmington could be liable for the acts of nonwlefendants.
Indeed, the Amended Complaint contains no allegations at all with respect to the actions of the
nondefendants that plaintiffs critique. Plaintiffs proffered critiques of non—det`endants therefore
will serve only to waste time on irrelevant issues and potentially lead to jury confusion regarding
the relevant issues in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants respectfully request that their Motion In Liiirine
To Exclude Certain Purported Expert Critiques ofthe Acts of Non-Defendants be granted.
2
RI.ii§—3{l55439-l

Case 1:04-cv-01254-Gl\/IS Document 136 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 3 of 4
A L A @4*
OF COUNSEL: w A. Perkins, J1; (#859)
yler O’Com1elI (#4514)
Rosemarie Tessone Richards, Layton & Finger
City of Wilmington Lew Department One Rodney Square
City/County Building, 9th Floor P, O. Box SSI
SOO N. French Street Wilmington, Delaware l9899
Wilmington, Delaware i9801 3()2~651—77OO
3 (}2~576~2l 75 Parkins@r1fQeom
Ocom1ell@rl£ com
Attomeys fo1·Defendants
Dated: September 8, 2006
.3
RLF1·3055439-l

Case 1:04-cv-01254-Gl\/IS Document 136 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 8, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECP which will send notincation of such tiling(s) and Hand
Delivered to the following:
Kester LH, Crosse, Esquire
Williams & Crosse
1214 King Street
Suite 300
Wilmington, DE 1980l
I hereby certify that on September 8, 2006, I have sent by U.S. Regular Mail, the
foregoing document to the following non—registered participants:
Anne Ti Suiton, Esquire
Post Office Box 276.3
Olympia, WA 98507
ji? Qzgtéa/{
K, Tyler Connell (#45 I4)
Richards, Layton & Finger, PNA,
One Rodney Square
P,.O, Box 551
Wilmington, Delaware i9899
(302) 65l·7700
[email protected]
me 2-2055429-1